The time‐course of speech perception revealed by temporally‐sensitive neural measures

Advanced Review

Laura M. Getz, Joseph C. Toscano

Published Online: Aug 07 2020

DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1541

Full article on Wiley Online Library: HTML PDF

Can't access this content? Tell your librarian.

Abstract Recent advances in cognitive neuroscience have provided a detailed picture of the early time‐course of speech perception. In this review, we highlight this work, placing it within the broader context of research on the neurobiology of speech processing, and discuss how these data point us toward new models of speech perception and spoken language comprehension. We focus, in particular, on temporally‐sensitive measures that allow us to directly measure early perceptual processes. Overall, the data provide support for two key principles: (a) speech perception is based on gradient representations of speech sounds and (b) speech perception is interactive and receives input from higher‐level linguistic context at the earliest stages of cortical processing. Implications for models of speech processing and the neurobiology of language more broadly are discussed. This article is categorized under: Psychology > Language Psychology > Perception and Psychophysics Neuroscience > Cognition

Time‐course of speech processing. (a) Real‐time neural measures have revealed the early time‐course over which different types of information are represented. Evidence that listeners encode fine‐grained detail in phonetic cues is found as early as 100 ms after stimulus onset (Noe & Fischer‐Baum, in press; Sarrett et al., submitted; Toscano et al., 2010), evidence of phonological feature and/or lexical representations is observed at 144 ms (Toscano et al., 2018), and evidence for integration of the input with semantic context is observed at 228 ms (Sarrett et al., submitted). (b) These processes are highly overlapping in time. Effects of gradient information, driven by bottom‐up input from the speech signal, persist for at least 700 ms after stimulus onset. In addition, top‐down information driven by linguistic context influences initial cue encoding and processes that occur before semantic integration begins. This has been found in experiments investigating effects of lexical feedback (e.g., the Ganong effect; desk vs. tesk; Gow et al., 2008; Noe & Fischer‐Baum, in press), sentential context (e.g., The outer part of a tree is called bark. Sarrett et al., submitted) and semantic context (e.g., cross‐modal sequential semantic primes; AMUSEMENT park; Getz & Toscano, 2019)

[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

References

Abada,, S. H., Baum,, S. R., & Titone,, D. (2008). The effects of contextual strength on phonetic identification in younger and older listeners. Experimental Aging Research, 34, 232–250.
Andruski,, J. E., Blumstein,, S. E., & Burton,, M. (1994). The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition, 52(3), 163–187.
Binder,, J. R., Frost,, J. A., Hammeke,, T. A., Bellgowan,, P. S., Springer,, J. A., Kaufman,, J. N., & Possing,, E. T. (2000). Human temporal lobe activation by speech and nonspeech sounds. Cerebral Cortex, 10(5), 512–528.
Blumstein,, S. E., Myers,, E. B., & Rissman,, J. (2005). The perception of voice onset time: An fMRI investigation of phonetic category structure. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1353–1366.
Brown‐Schmidt,, S., & Toscano,, J. C. (2017). Gradient acoustic information induces long‐lasting referential uncertainty in short discourses. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(10), 1211–1228.
Buchsbaum,, B., Hickok,, G., & Humphries,, C. (2001). Role of left posterior superior temporal gyrus in phonological processing for speech perception and production. Cognitive Science, 25, 663–678.
Bunce,, S. C., Izzetoglu,, M., Izzetoglu,, K., Onaral,, B., & Pourrezaei,, K. (2006). Functional near‐infrared spectroscopy. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 25(4), 54–62.
Cairns,, P., Shillcock,, R., Chater,, N., & Levy,, J. P. (1995). Bottom–up connectionist modeling of speech. In J. P. Levy,, D. Bairaktaris,, J. A. Bullinaria,, & P. Cairns, (Eds.), Connectionist models of memory and language (pp. 289–310). London: UCL Press.
Chang,, E. F., Niziolek,, C. A., Knight,, R. T., Nagarajan,, S. S., & Houde,, J. F. (2013). Human cortical sensorimotor network underlying feedback control of vocal pitch. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(7), 2653–2658.
Chang,, E. F., Rieger,, J. W., Johnson,, K., Berger,, M. S., Barbaro,, N. M., & Knight,, R. T. (2010). Categorical speech representation in human superior temporal gyrus. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 1428–1432.
Clifton,, C., Jr., Speer,, S., & Abney,, S. P. (1991). Parsing arguments: Phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(2), 251–271.
Connine,, C. M. (1987). Constraints on interactive processes in auditory word recognition: The role of sentence context. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(5), 527–538.
Connine,, C. M., & Clifton,, C., Jr. (1987). Interactive use of lexical information in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(2), 291–299.
Curio,, G., Neuloh,, G., Numminen,, J., Jousmäki,, V., & Hari,, R. (2000). Speaking modifies voice‐evoked activity in the human auditory cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 9(4), 183–191.
Davis,, M. H., & Johnsrude,, I. S. (2003). Hierarchical processing in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Neuroscience, 23(8), 3423–3431.
Dehaene‐Lambertz,, G. (1997). Electrophysiological correlates of categorical phoneme perception in adults. Neuroreport, 8, 919–924.
Desai,, R., Liebenthal,, E., Waldron,, E., & Binder,, J. R. (2008). Left posterior temporal regions are sensitive to auditory categorization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(7), 1174–1188.
Di Liberto,, G. M., O`Sullivan,, J. A., & Lalor,, E. C. (2015). Low‐frequency cortical entrainment to speech reflects phoneme‐level processing. Current Biology, 25, 2457–2465.
Diehl,, R. L., Lotto,, A. J., & Holt,, L. L. (2004). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 149–179.
Elman,, J. L., & McClelland,, J. L. (1988). Cognitive penetration of the mechanisms of perception: Compensation for coarticulation of lexically restored phonemes. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 143–165.
Falandays,, J. B., Brown‐Schmidt,, S., & Toscano,, J. C. (2020). Long‐lasting gradient activation of referents during spoken language processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 104088.
Ford,, J. M., & Mathalon,, D. H. (2005). Corollary discharge dysfunction in schizophrenia: Can it explain auditory hallucinations? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 58(2–3), 179–189.
Ford,, J. M., Mathalon,, D. H., Heinks,, T., Kalba,, S., Faustman,, W. O., & Roth,, W. T. (2001). Neurophysiological evidence of corollary discharge dysfunction in schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(12), 2069–2071.
Ford,, J. M., Roach,, B. J., & Mathalon,, D. H. (2010). Assessing corollary discharge in humans using noninvasive neurophysiological methods. Nature Protocols, 5(6), 1160–1168.
Fowler,, C. A. (1984). Segmentation of coarticulated speech in perception. Perception %26 Psychophysics, 36(4), 359–368.
Fox,, R. A. (1984). Effect of lexical status on phonetic categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 526–540.
Frazier,, L., & Fodor,, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two‐stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291–325.
Frye,, R., McGraw Fisher,, J., Coty,, A., Zarella,, M., Liederman,, J., & Halgren,, E. (2007). Linear coding of voice onset time. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1476–1487.
Galle,, M. E., Klein‐Packard,, J., Schreiber,, K., & McMurray,, B. (2019). What are you waiting for? Real‐time integration of cues for fricatives suggests encapsulated auditory memory. Cognitive Science, 43(1), e12700.
Ganong,, W. F. (1980). Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6(1), 110–125.
Gerrits,, E., & Schouten,, M. (2004). Categorical perception depends on the discrimination task. Perception %26 Psychophysics, 66, 363–376.
Getz,, L. M., & Toscano,, J. C. (2019). Electrophysiological evidence for top‐down lexical influences on early speech perception. Psychological Science, 30(6), 830–841.
Gow,, D. W., & Olson,, B. B. (2015). Lexical mediation of phonotactic frequency effects on spoken word recognition: A Granger causality analysis of MRI‐constrained MEG/EEG data. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 41–55.
Gow,, D. W., & Olson,, B. B. (2016). Sentential influences on acoustic‐phonetic processing: A granger causality analysis of multimodal imaging data. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(7), 841–855.
Gow,, D. W., Segawa,, J. A., Ahlfors,, S. P., & Lin,, F.‐H. (2008). Lexical influences on speech perception: A granger causality analysis of MEG and EEG source estimates. NeuroImage, 43, 614–623.
Gratton,, G., Chiarelli,, A. M., & Fabiani,, M. (2017). From brain to blood vessels and back: A noninvasive optical imaging approach. Neurophotonics, 4(3), 031208.
Gratton,, G., & Fabiani,, M. (2001). Shedding light on brain function: The event‐related optical signal. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(8), 357–363.
Guediche,, S., Salvata,, C., & Blumstein,, S. E. (2013). Temporal cortex reflects effects of sentence context on phonetic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(5), 706–718.
Guediche,, S., Zhu,, Y., Minicucci,, D., & Blumstein,, S. E. (2019). Written sentence context effects on acoustic‐phonetic perception: fMRI reveals cross‐modal semantic‐perceptual interactions. Brain and Language, 199, 104698.
Gwilliams,, L., Linzen,, T., Poeppel,, D., & Marantz,, A. (2018). In spoken word recognition, the future predicts the past. Journal of Neuroscience, 38, 7585–7599.
Hari,, R., Hämäläinen,, M., Ilmoniemi,, R., Kaukoranta,, E., Reinikainen,, K., Salminen,, J., & Sams,, M. (1984). Responses of the primary auditory cortex to pitch changes in a sequence of tone pips: Neuromagnetic recordings in man. Neuroscience Letters, 50, 127–113.
Hickok,, G., Buchsbaum,, B., Humphries,, C., & Muftuler,, T. (2003). Auditory–motor interaction revealed by fMRI: Speech, music, and working memory in area SPT. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 673–682.
Hickok,, G., & Poeppel,, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(5), 393–402.
Hink,, R. F., Hillyard,, S. A., & Benson,, P. J. (1978). Event‐related brain potentials and selective attention to acoustic and phonetic cues. Biological Psychology, 6(1), 1–16.
Joanisse,, M., Robertson,, E., & Newman,, R. (2007). Mismatch negativity reflects sensory and phonetic speech processing. Neuroreport, 18, 901–905.
Kaas,, J. H., & Hackett,, T. A. (2000). Subdivisions of auditory cortex and processing streams in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(22), 11793–11799.
Khalighinejad,, B., da Silva,, G. C., & Mesgarani,, N. (2017). Dynamic encoding of acoustic features in neural responses to continuous speech. Journal of Neuroscience, 37, 2176–2185.
Köhler,, W., Held,, R., & O`Connell,, D. N. (1952). An investigation of cortical currents. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 96(3), 290–330.
Köhler,, W., & Wegner,, J. (1955). Currents of the human auditory cortex. Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology, 45(S1), 25–54.
Liberman,, A. M., Cooper,, F. S., Shankweiler,, D. P., & Studdert‐Kennedy,, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74(6), 431–461.
Liberman,, A. M., Harris,, K. S., Hoffman,, H. S., & Griffith,, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 358–368.
Liberman,, A. M., & Mattingly,, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21(1), 1–36.
Lisker,, L., & Abramson,, A. S. (1964). A cross‐language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word, 20(3), 384–422.
Luce,, P. A., & Pisoni,, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19(1), 1–36.
Luck,, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event‐related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Luthra,, S., Guediche,, S., Blumstein,, S. E., & Myers,, E. B. (2019). Neural substrates of subphonemic variation and lexical competition in spoken word recognition. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 34(2), 151–169.
Magnuson,, J. S., McMurray,, B., Tanenhaus,, M. K., & Aslin,, R. N. (2003). Lexical effects on compensation for coarticulation: The ghost of Christmash past. Cognitive Science, 27, 285–298.
Maiste,, A., Wiens,, A., Hunt,, M., Scherg,, M., & Picton,, T. (1995). Event‐related potentials and the categorical perception of speech sounds. Ear and Hearing, 16, 68–89.
McClelland,, J. L., & Elman,, J. L. (1986). The trace model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86.
McMurray,, B., Tanenhaus,, M. K., & Aslin,, R. N. (2002). Gradient effects of within‐category phonetic variation on lexical access. Cognition, 86(2), B33–B42.
McMurray,, B., Tanenhaus,, M. K., & Aslin,, R. N. (2009). Within‐category VOT affects recovery from "Lexical" garden‐paths: Evidence against phoneme‐level inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 65–91.
McQueen,, J. M. (2003). The ghost of Christmas future: Didn`t Scrooge learn to be good? Commentary on Magnuson, Mcmurray, Tanenhaus and Aslin (2003). Cognitive Science, 27, 795–799.
Mesgarani,, N., Cheung,, C., Johnson,, K., & Chang,, E. F. (2014). Phonetic feature encoding in human superior temporal gyrus. Science, 343, 1006–1010.
Miller,, G. A., Heise,, G. A., & Litchen,, W. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of test materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 329–335.
Miller,, J. L. (1994). On the internal structure of phonetic categories: A progress report. Cognition, 50, 271–285.
Myers,, E. B., & Blumstein,, S. E. (2008). The neural bases of the lexical effect: An fMRI investigation. Cerebral Cortex, 18(2), 278–288.
Myers,, E. B., Blumstein,, S. E., Walsh,, E., & Eliassen,, J. (2009). Inferior frontal regions underlie the perception of phonetic category invariance. Psychological Science, 20, 895–903.
Näätänen,, R. (1975). Selective attention and evoked potentials inhumans—A critical review. Biological Psychology, 2(4), 237–307.
Näätänen,, R., Gaillard,, A. W., & Mäntysalo,, S. (1978). Early selective‐attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychologica, 42(4), 313–329.
Näätänen,, R., Paavilainen,, P., & Reinikainen,, K. (1989). Do event‐related potentials to infrequent decrements in duration of auditory stimuli demonstrate a memory trace in man? Neuroscience Letters, 107, 347–352.
Näätänen,, R., & Picton,, T. (1987). The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: A review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology, 24, 375–425.
Noe,, C., & Fischer‐Baum,, S. (2020). Early lexical influences on sublexical processing in speech perception: Evidence from electrophysiology. Cognition, 197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104162.
Norris,, D., McQueen,, J. M., & Cutler,, A. (2000). Merging information in speech recognition: Feedback is never necessary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(3), 299–325.
Nourski,, K. N., Steinschneider,, M., McMurray,, B., Kovach,, C., Oya,, H., Kawasaki,, H., & Howard,, M. (2014). Functional organization of human auditory cortex: Investigation of response latencies through direct recordings. NeuroImage, 101, 598–609.
Nourski,, K. N., Steinschneider,, M. S., Rhone,, A. R., Oya,, H., Kawasaki,, H., Howard,, M. A., & McMurray,, B. (2015). Sound identification in human auditory cortex: Differential contribution of local field potentials and high gamma power as revealed by direct intracranial recordings. Brain and Language, 148, 37–50.
Okada,, K., Rong,, F., Venezia,, J., Matchin,, W., Hsieh,, I.‐H., Saberi,, K., … Hickok,, G. (2010). Hierarchical organization of human auditory cortex: Evidence from acoustic invariance in the response to intelligible speech. Cerebral Cortex, 20(10), 2486–2495.
Pasley,, B. N., David,, S. V., Mesgarani,, N., Flinker,, A., Shamma,, S. A., Crone,, N. E., … Chang,, E. F. (2012). Reconstructing speech from human auditory cortex. PLoS Biology, 10, e1001251.
Peelle,, J. E., Johnsrude,, I., & Davis,, M. H. (2010). Hierarchical processing for speech in human auditory cortex and beyond. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 51.
Penfield,, W., & Roberts,, L. (1959). Speech and brain mechanisms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pereira,, O., Gao,, Y. A., & Toscano,, J. C. (2018). Perceptual encoding of natural speech sounds revealed by the N1 event‐related potential response. Auditory Perception %26 Cognition, 1(1–2), 112–130.
Phillips,, C., Pellathy,, T., Marantz,, A., Yellin,, E., Wexler,, K., Poeppel,, D., … Roberts,, T. (2000). Auditory cortex accesses phonological categories: An MEG mismatch study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 1038–1055.
Picton,, T. W., & Hillyard,, S. A. (1974). Human auditory evoked potentials. II: Effects of attention. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 36, 191–200.
Picton,, T. W., Woods,, D. L., & Proulx,, G. B. (1978a). Human auditory sustained potentials. II. Stimulus relationships. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 45(2), 198–210.
Picton,, T. W., Woods,, D. L., & Proulx,, G. B. (1978b). Human auditory sustained potentials. I. the nature of the response. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 45(2), 186–197.
Pisoni,, D. B., & Lazarus,, J. H. (1974). Categorical and noncategorical modes of speech perception along the voicing continuum. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 55(2), 328–333.
Pisoni,, D. B., & Tash,, J. (1974). Reaction times to comparisons within and across phonetic categories. Perception %26 Psychophysics, 15, 285–290.
Pitt,, M. A. (1995). The locus of the lexical shift in phoneme identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, %26 Cognition, 21, 1037–1052.
Pitt,, M. A., & Samuel,, A. G. (1995). Lexical and sublexical feedback in auditory word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 149–188.
Prabhakaran,, R., Blumstein,, S. E., Myers,, E. B., Hutchison,, E., & Britton,, B. (2006). An event‐related fMRI investigation of phonological–lexical competition. Neuropsychologia, 44(12), 2209–2221.
Rauschecker,, J. P., & Tian,, B. (2000). Mechanisms and streams for processing of “what” and “where” in auditory cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(22), 11800–11806.
Rogers,, J. C., & Davis,, M. H. (2017). Inferior frontal cortex contributions to the recognition of spoken words and their constituent speech sounds. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(5), 919–936.
Sams,, M., Aulanko,, R., Aaltonen,, O., & Näätänen,, R. (1990). Event‐related potentials to infrequent changes in synthesized phonetic stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(4), 344–357.
Sams,, M., Hamalainen,, M., Antervo,, A., Kaukoranta,, E., Reinikainen,, K., & Hari,, R. (1985). Cerebral neuromagnetic responses evoked by short auditory stimuli. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neuropbysiology, 61, 254–266.
Sams,, M., Paavilainen,, P., Alho,, K., & Näätänen,, R. (1985). Auditory frequency discrimination and event‐related potentials. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 62(6), 437–448.
Samuel,, A. G. (1981). Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(4), 474–494.
Samuel,, A. G., & Pitt,, M. A. (2003). Lexical activation (and other factors) can mediate compensation for coarticulation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 416–434.
Sarrett,, M. E., McMurray,, B., & Kapnoula,, E. C. (submitted). Dynamic EEG analysis during language comprehension reveals interactive cascades between perceptual processing and semantic expectations.
Schouten,, B., Gerrits,, E., & van Hessen,, A. (2003). The end of categorical perception as we know it. Speech Communication, 41, 71–80.
Scott,, M., Yeung,, H. H., Gick,, B., & Werker,, J. F. (2013). Inner speech captures the perception of external speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(4), EL286–EL292.
Scott,, S. K. (2005). Auditory processing — Speech, space and auditory objects. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 197–201.
Scott,, S. K., Blank,, C. C., Rosen,, S., & Wise,, R. J. (2000). Identification of a pathway for intelligible speech in the left temporal lobe. Brain, 123(12), 2400–2406.
Scott,, S. K., & Johnsrude,, I. S. (2003). The neuroanatomical and functional organization of speech perception. Trends in Neurosciences, 26(2), 100–107.
Sharma,, A., & Dorman,, M. (1999). Cortical auditory evoked potential correlates of categorical perception of voice‐onset time. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 1078–1083.
Sharma,, A., Kraus,, N., Mcgee,, T., Carrell,, T., & Nicol,, T. (1993). Acoustic versus phonetic representation of speech as reflected by the mismatch negativity event‐related potential. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 88, 64–71.
Sharma,, A., Marsh,, C., & Dorman,, M. (2000). Relationship between N1 evoked potential morphology and the perception of voicing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 3030–3035.
Steinschneider,, M., Volkov,, I., Noh,, M., Garell,, P., & Howard,, M. (1999). Temporal encoding of the voice onset time phonetic parameter by field potentials recorded directly from human auditory cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 82, 2346–2357.
Stevens,, K. N., & Blumstein,, S. E. (1978). Invariant cues for place of articulation in stop consonants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64(5), 1358–1368.
Tanenhaus,, M. K., & Brown‐Schmidt,, S. (2007). Language processing in the natural world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1493), 1105–1122.
Tanenhaus,, M. K., Spivey‐Knowlton,, M. J., Eberhard,, K. M., & Sedivy,, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634.
Tanner,, D., Morgan‐Short,, K., & Luck,, S. J. (2015). How inappropriate high‐pass filters can produce artifactual effects and incorrect conclusions in erp studies of language and cognition. Psychophysiology, 52(8), 997–1009.
Tomé,, D., Barbosa,, F., Nowak,, K., & Marques‐Teixeira,, J. (2015). The development of the N1 and N2 components in auditory oddball paradigms: A systematic review with narrative analysis and suggested normative values. Journal of Neural Transmission, 122, 375–391.
Toscano,, J. C., Anderson,, N. D., Fabiani,, M., Gratton,, G., & Garnsey,, S. M. (2018). The time‐course of cortical responses to speech revealed by fast optical imaging. Brain and Language, 184, 32–42.
Toscano,, J. C., McMurray,, B., Dennhardt,, J., & Luck,, S. J. (2010). Continuous perception and graded categorization electrophysiological evidence for a linear relationship between the acoustic signal and perceptual encoding of speech. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1532–1540.
Tourville,, J. A., & Guenther,, F. H. (2011). The DIVA model: A neural theory of speech acquisition and production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(7), 952–981.
Trueswell,, J. C., Tanenhaus,, M. K., & Garnsey,, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285–318.
Warren,, R. M. (1970). Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science, 167, 392–393.
Whitford,, T. J., Jack,, B. N., Pearson,, D., Griffiths,, O., Luque,, D., Harris,, A. W., … Le Pelley,, M. E. (2017). Neurophysiological evidence of efference copies to inner speech. eLife, 6, e28197.
Yi,, H. G., Leonard,, M. K., & Chang,, E. F. (2019). The encoding of speech sounds in the superior temporal gyrus. Neuron, 102, 1096–1110.
Zellou,, G., & Dahan,, D. (2019). Listeners maintain phonological uncertainty over time and across words: The case of vowel nasality in English. Journal of Phonetics, 76, 100910.

Access to this WIREs title is by subscription only.

Recommend to Your
Librarian Now!

The time‐course of speech perception revealed by temporally‐sensitive neural measures

Browse by Topic

Access to this WIREs title is by subscription only.

The latest WIREs articles in your inbox